kohlrak: The porn acts as an abstraction of a woman, while the loli acts as an abstraction of child porn, in the same way the virtual pet acts as an abstraction of a real pet.
clarry: It might be an abstraction at some level.. just like playing virtual paintball is an abstraction of killing people?
But I think you may be likening things a little too much. Really, I would've never likened a tamagotchi to a real pet at any meaningful level. It's an abstraction of a real pet, but that's where it ends.
Everyone has varying degrees of realisation. I've seen children and adults cry over the loss of ther tamagotchi's virtual life. This is why some people have a hard time "with pixels on a screen" and "cartoon reflections of a person." However, given the logic behind the sexual interest and orgasm, it seems reasonable to assume the representation is at least close enough for interest, else why are you shooting your rocks off to a naked cartoon instead of a clothed cartoon? Supposedly there are people that're getting to the point where they are disinterested in pictures of real women, but have interest in cartoons, but i have yet to meet one of these people.
As a matter of fact, I'm rather more concerned that these creations are something reality can't emulate even with a superb cosplay kit. See, the phenomenom I'm overwhelmingly familiar with is that people get obsessed with their perfect and beautiful 2d waifus (whether lolis or not) and don't want to have anything to do with real 3d people whom they find bland or even disgusting by comparison. And I've witnessed it multiple times on 4chan (or similar) boards where people post their loli and then someone drops a (safe) photo of a supposedly attractive real kid. The response tends to be one of repulsion.
We hear of these people, but are they real? Even if they are, is what they're saying actually true, or cognitive dissonance to defend whatever it is that lead them to the porn to begin with? Given this phenomena seems to be mostly regarding virtual women, instead of virtual men, i would argue that there's some research to be had in that regard. It would certainly shine a light on things.
Incidentally, there are many image boards where loli pics are common (or even the main focus of the board), but ones where you find 3d renders with similar content are niche of niche. There just doesn't seem to be much interest for that, and I get the impression that the set of people who are into loli, and the set of people who are into 3d kids, barely intersect.
Loli is legal in some places, but "3d" (i'm assuming you mean realistic) is not, so it's difficult to say if it's really a reflection of interest or a matter of pragmatism. It could even be a matter of morality, which i would prefer it to be, but reality is independent of my wishes.
You could say it's a bit orthogonal, and to a degree I would agree. I can't entirely reject the theory that stylized, illustrated "child porn" would normalize sex with children in a small subset of the population. But I have more evidence that lolis normalize appetite for loli (potentially at the expense of reducing appetite for real people), just as playing paintball normalizes the act of shooting fun play guns at people for sport. Nothing more. Since I don't want to make too many claims without evidence, I'll just say that I would like to argue that the people who are into paintball and also into pointing a gun or their genitalia at real people, it's likely that the tendancy wasn't primarily derived from the sport as a result of normalization.. It might be the case that people who are into 3d kids would use 2d illustrations as a substitute because it's widely available and either legal or at least less likely to land you in jail, depending on where you live?
Well, yeah, naturally loli raises appetite for loli far more than "real" child porn, by the very things i've stated already. The question in that regard, though, is whether or not there is genuinely loli viewers out there that gain no interest in real child porn, which there is some evidence to suggest, but, like i said above, we could find this out somewhat more ethically by looking into the waifu lovers and bronies. I would argue this "preference for waifus" is a secondary effect of repeated exposure coupled with trauma, however if you could confirm that this is the case, then loli (and cartoon porn in general) would largely be seen as more of an intervention than a gateway.
Whatever effect it may have, I'm not too concerned about it in the end, if only because it's obvious that child abuse and commercially produced child porn were a thing long before the internet made its breakthrough and easy access to animated loli stuff got in hands of anyone who wanted it. It's not like we've seen a remarkable spike in child abuse that could be correlated with the spread of internet either. And, well, the majority of the cases of child abuse I see reported are of older perps, who are most likely oblivious to the existence of this type of "art." In short, I don't see enough evidence to feel that we should even be alarmed about the potential of lolicon. Whatever effect it has is a drop in the ocean at this point.
Even if it's not a major spike, that doesn't mean that a major spike would not develop with legalization and cultural normalization. That said, even if it wasn't a major spike, the idea is that if it raises at all, it is easy to see it as a policy failure.
Lodium: I thougth i already said i made a distinction betwen art thats clearly representing reality vs Fantasy but i guess i need to repeat it more clearly this time
Real photos of children is clearly child porn and thus against the law in most contrys.
Art that clearly represent real people/children also goes under the same.
Now, theres alot of loli thats not realistic in any way and wich cant be said to represent any real people whatsever, pixelated beyond measure or so unrealistic proportions its a joke..
Psychologically speaking, this is not the case. Why does loli elicit certain biological reactions but not the box art of Sonic Heroes?
You seam to be under the impression that all Loli must represent underage human girls.
I repaet in the realm of fantasy the character migth not be human at all but still be underage if we think in human terms. But is it logical to think in human terms at all? especially if the character is succubi or an elf? Elves' bodies developed slower than those of Men, but their minds developed more swiftly.In their twenties, they might still appear physically seven years old, though the Elf-child would have mature language and skil whereas Men at the same age are already physically mature
It's not really loli, at that point. The term itself spawns from "lolita complex [Lolita {Character from a famous book} → Lolita Complex → ロリタコンプレックス → ロリコン → rorikon → lolicon {restoration of consonants} → loli]," which implies underage humans (usually female, but can include males).
What you dont seam to be getting here, is that im defending freedom of expression and i will defend this hard
If somone wants to draw loli there shoudnt be alot restrictions in place to be able to do that. Cencoring freedom of thougth have newer worked well historicly and will not work well in the future. Defending censorship with undocumented claims that it migth affect somone to commit the crime of sexual abuse is pretty outlandish as well as claiming that children can copy the act since that requires somone to actually provide them with said images (unresponsible adults) and until i see some clear evidence that pixelated loli pictures wich doesnt represent reality at all , leads to increase in child sex abuse i wll keep my stance on the matter. I really dont think there has been any serious research on the matter and whatever info against or for is biased and based on feelings rather than real facts and science. Until these facts is provided, honesty and moral mumbo jumbo is pointless and will not lead annywhere.
There's clear evidence that porn (non-loli) has a huge impact on sexuality. The extrapolation to expecting loli to have the same effect is not asking much at all.
However, i'm not advocating for censorship of thought: i'm presenting the arguments. I'm still on the fence, because of the censorship of thought argument, as i've stated many times above. Do not strawman. May I ask if you are particularly invested in this topic? Because there's no research suggesting that driving a red car while intoxicated leads to fatalities, just to make an obvious comparison.
